This summary explains the findings of the NEW DAY study, which examined two ways of starting treatment for diabetic macular edema (DME). DME is an eye condition that can affect people with diabetes and can cause blurred vision or vision loss if not treated. In the 18-month study, adults with DME who had little or no previous treatment started therapy with either a single fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant or a series of aflibercept injections. The FAc implant is a small device placed inside the eye and is designed to slowly release a corticosteroid up to 3 years. Aflibercept is a medicine given as a series of eye injections. After the planned starting treatment, people in both groups could receive extra ("rescue") aflibercept injections if their vision worsened or if eye scans showed worsening DME (retina swelling). After the planned starting treatments, both groups needed a similar number of rescue injections. However, counting the planned starting treatments plus the rescue injections, people who received the FAc implant had fewer total injections and went longer before needing their first rescue injection. Vision and retina swelling improved similarly between groups. Side effects such as cataracts and increases in eye pressure were more common with the FAc implant. Such side effects are expected when steroids are given in the eye and manageable with regular checkups and treatment. Overall, compared with starting DME treatment with aflibercept, starting with the FAc implant reduced the total number of injections while providing similar vision and eye scan improvements. What is this summary about? This is a plain language summary of the results of the NEW DAY study published in Ophthalmology 2026 Jul;133(7):837-851. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2026.03.019. NEW DAY compared ILUVIEN[®], a fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAc), with aflibercept in people with diabetic macular edema (DME) who had minimal or no prior treatment for that condition. DME is a complication of diabetes that affects the eye, causing blurred vision and potential vision loss if left untreated. DME happens when small blood vessels are damaged in the retina (an area at the back of the eye where specialized cells sense light and send signals to the brain so that we can see). These damaged blood vessels become leaky and cause swelling (edema) in a central area of the retina called the macula. Current treatments for DME include medicines that reduce inflammation (called corticosteroids) and medicines that block a protein called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) that causes blood vessels to leak (these are called anti-VEGFs). The purpose of the NEW DAY study was to compare the FAc implant (a corticosteroid) with aflibercept (an anti-VEGF) injections as a treatment for people with DME who had either minimal or no prior treatment. Worsening DME may occur in some people despite treatment. During the study, extra aflibercept injections were given when needed after the initial planned treatment. The study compared how many extra, or "rescue", aflibercept injections were needed after the planned treatment. The study also compared the effect of each treatment on vision and swelling of the macula. Side effects of the treatments were also recorded. What were the results? After the planned treatments (either one FAc implant or five aflibercept injections), the average number of extra aflibercept injections was similar between groups. However, when counting the planned treatments, the total number of injections over 18 months was lower in people who received FAc. Rescue injections were needed sooner after the last scheduled aflibercept injection than after receiving a FAc implant. Regardless of initial treatment, improvements in vision and swelling of the retina were similar. Side effects, such as cataracts and increases in eye pressure, were more frequent with FAc than aflibercept. What do the results mean? Starting DME treatment with the FAc implant had similar benefits to vision and swelling as starting with aflibercept. People who started with FAc needed fewer total injections overall than those who started with aflibercept and had a longer time to requiring rescue injections. Side effects of FAc were as expected and were manageable. Knowing the timing of when they happened can help eye-care teams better monitor patients with DME and manage their care.

Glucocorticoid drugs (GCs) are widely used in dermatology due to their potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. While numerous studies have demonstrated that exposure to glucocorticoids-whether due to stress or exogenous administration-can lead to severe ovarian aging, direct evidence regarding whether topical glucocorticoid (GC) treatment for dermatologic conditions affects ovarian aging remains limited. In female C57BL/6 mice (n = 6 per group), we established an excessive topical GC exposure model using an intentionally supratherapeutic fluocinolone acetonide regimen, which caused marked epidermal/dermal atrophy and impaired skin barrier function. Skin injury was evaluated by histological and barrier-marker assessments, and ovarian aging was assessed by estrous cyclicity, follicle counts, ovarian fibrosis, and the expression of AMH, p16INK4a, and γH2AX. In the present study, exogenous GCs caused marked atrophy in both the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin, impairing skin barrier function. These findings suggest that the dosage administered exceeded the therapeutic range, resulting in severe skin aging. However, the estrous cycles of the mice remained normal, and there were no significant differences in ovarian follicle counts, tissue fibrosis, or the protein expression of AMH, p16[INK4a], and γH2AX compared to the control group. Under the specific experimental conditions tested, no significant ovarian aging-related differences were detected. However, systemic glucocorticoid exposure was not measured, and the study was not powered to exclude small effects on ovarian function. Therefore, these findings do not establish ovarian safety, and larger and longer-duration studies are required.

This study investigated the optimization, development, and validation of an accurate, precise, and sensitive reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatographic technique with variable-wavelength detection (RP-HPLC-VWD) method for the rapid determination of four active ingredients (APIs) of hydroquinone (HYQ), methylparaben (MP), fluocinolone acetonide (FLN), and propylparaben (PP) in pharmaceutical dosage forms. The optimized chromatographic conditions consisted of a mobile phase of a mixture of acetonitrile and a sodium heptane-1-sulfonate buffer (pH 3.5) with a BDS C18 column (5 μm, 250 mm × 4.6 mm) and wavelength detection at 254 nm. The method revealed excellent linearity (R[2] > 0.999 for all analytes), accuracy (recovery ranging from 99.0 to 101.5% across three concentration levels), high precision, with a repeatability RSD% of <0.3% for all APIs, and robustness/ruggedness confirmed within the ICH-recommended limit of <2.0% (RSD% range from 0.218% to 1.367%). To enhance process efficiency, Lean Six Sigma methodology was implemented, incorporating the process capability index (Cpk), which yielded values greater than 1.0, indicating a capable and stable process. The RP-HPLC-VWD method for HYQ/MP/FLN/PP achieves an excellent balance between superior analytical performance and practicality, while also revealing a good environmentally sound approach. The accompanying tools complement each other perfectly, with high performance of RAPI (95.0%)/ BAGI (77.5%) highlighting the strengths and acceptable satisfaction level of EPPI (EI = 76.7% and PPI = 55.0%) and Multi-color Assessment platform (MA = 61.1%) and Red-Green-Blue (72.5%) as a whiteness evaluation tool.

Local therapy plays a pivotal role in the management of noninfectious uveitis, providing targeted drug delivery with reduced systemic adverse effects. Advances in corticosteroid formulations and delivery routes have significantly improved therapeutic outcomes. Topical corticosteroids remain first-line for anterior uveitis, while periocular and intravitreal injections such as triamcinolone acetonide and dexamethasone implants (Ozurdex®) are effective for intermediate and posterior disease. Long-acting fluocinolone acetonide implants (Retisert®, Yutiq®) offer sustained control for chronic or recurrent cases, though ocular hypertension and cataract formation are common. The introduction of suprachoroidal corticosteroid delivery (Xipere®) allows precise posterior segment targeting with fewer anterior complications. Nonsteroidal intravitreal agents, including methotrexate and sirolimus, serve as steroid-sparing options, and topical immunomodulators such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus can be rarely used in chronic anterior uveitis. Emerging modalities like intravitreal biologics, nanocarrier systems, and gene-based delivery hold promise for long-term disease modulation. A tailored, evidence-based approach to local therapy can optimize inflammation control and visual outcomes in uveitis management.

Chronic macular edema is a well-recognized complication of radiation-induced maculopathy (RM). Current treatment methods vary in efficacy and clinical benefit. The potential of fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) slow-release intravitreal implants (Iluvien® implant) remains unclear. We hypothesized that local continuous delivery of low-dose corticosteroids may improve RM symptoms.

Systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressants remain the standard first-line therapy for non-anterior, non-infectious uveitis (NIU), but prolonged use carries significant systemic and ocular adverse effects. Several intraocular agents have recently emerged as effective alternative or adjunctive options. Our meta-analysis included 9 randomized controlled trials and 1 retrospective case series, investigating the efficacy and safety profiles of intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAi), intravitreal dexamethasone implant, intravitreal or suprachoroidal triamcinolone acetonide (SCTA), intravitreal methotrexate, intravitreal ranibizumab, and standard of care (SOC) for NIU. Our results demonstrated that all the studied intraocular agents excluding ranibizumab demonstrated a better best-corrected visual acuity gain compared to SOC at 6 months. The 4 mg SCTA demonstrated the greatest central macular thickness reduction surpassing other intraocular steroid therapies and SOC at 6 months for uveitic macular edema. With regards to side effects, 0.59 mg FAi was associated with a higher risk of 2-year and 3-year intraocular pressure elevation ≥ 10 mmHg when compared to SOC. Understanding the advantages and limitations of intraocular therapies is essential for initiating personalized treatment strategies in NIU.